[twitter style=”horizontal” source=”intlpolitical” float=”left”] [fbshare type=”button” float=”left”]
“Europe can’t close its eyes to the danger of our time”, Konrad Aedenauer said in 1950, forging the foundations of today’s EU, and Europe’s contemporary leaders would do well to heed his words. It is becoming more and more clear that ‘more Europe’ is the answer to current crisis we are in. Well, about time, I know lots of people who could have told you that a couple of years ago. Doomsday scenarios like “if we do nothing, Europe will crumble” are finding there way to the big media and are even being promoted by prominent politicians such as Guy Verhofstadt – and it pains me to say that they are right. Indeed, what would we do without more Europe? Our economies are extremely interdependent and I don’t even want to begin imagining the costs, both economic and other, of terminating the single currency or even the Single European market. So, finally, Europe’s leaders – well, “leaders” – are realising the inevitable: either there is more Europe, or there is no Europe.
Good, glad we settled that. But then the question rises, what kind of Europe? ‘More Europe’ is all good and well, but without a clear plan what exactly that Europe is supposed to do or look like, we’re no step further. The EU’s latest summit fleshed out some ideas on Europe’s future, but no concrete proposals were made. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy said “It’s time to go from words to deeds. Europe must comply as quickly as possible with the agreements its leaders reached in Brussels. The European project is at stake.” And he is absolutely right, obviously, but it would have been nice of him to actually propose some agreements that are easier to comply with. Essentially, the main issue is, as it has always been, the question of how much power the European level will be given. One can go into detail on each and every little topic, but the overall enigma is: do it ourselves with Europe’s help, or let Europe do it altogether?
Without going any deeper into the history of European integration, this question has bugged the process from its very beginning and is raised again every time a crisis pops up. One of the answers that has made its way up ever since the 1990s is the concept of differentiated integration. Indeed, debates about enhanced cooperation or open coordination signaled attempts to give differentiated integration constitutional rank. However, we need to ask ourselves whether that really is the direction we wish to go. The procedures of differentiated integration so far have not delivered, and some are convinced that the method fosters an “ever looser union”. So where are we going with Europe? Honestly, the unceremonious answer is: we don’t know. Neither academics nor politicians are agreed on what the best track to follow is. Some refuse to transfer any more powers to the EU, while others – notably Germany – refuse to fund any more bailouts unless the EU level is strengthened. Some want to continue solely with the willing, while others only want EU-wide measures. Some still believe in a ‘Europe à la carte’ while others are in favour of a more rigid “one for all and all for one”-style Europe.
So like it or not, I’m guessing differentiation is Europe’s future no matter what. Having a far-reaching union with 27 member states requires some suppleness from all participants, and differentiated integration, which allows for flexibility on difficult issues, seems the only way forward. Nothings wrong with that, I’m all for a “whatever works” approach, but we must be careful not to quarter and dismember the Union. To end with how I started, ‘more Europe’ is the only answer to current crisis and to deny that would be both unwise and irresponsible. How exactly that Europe will work is upon for debate, of course, but comparable to a game of tug ‘o war, if we don’t all pull in the same general direction, all our efforts will have been in vain.
About the Author
